An unfavourable finding is not the end of the matter, but the remedy is narrower than most people expect and the clock is short. Two things have to be separated at once: the representation you can make to the Committee itself, and the statutory appeal that follows the recommendation.
The step before the appeal
The second proviso to Section 11(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 says that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall during the course of the inquiry be given an opportunity of being heard, and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee. That is a right to answer the findings before the Committee turns them into a recommendation. Section 13(1) then requires the report to go to the employer within ten days of the inquiry being completed and to be made available to the parties. If you were told the outcome in a two line email and never given the findings, ask for them in writing, cite Section 13(1), and put your representation on the record.
What the appeal actually attacks
Section 18(1) lists what can be appealed, and it is a closed list: the recommendation under Section 13(2) that the allegation has not been proved, the recommendations under Section 13(3)(i) or (ii) where it has been proved, action recommended under Section 14(1) or (2) for a false or malicious complaint, an order under Section 17, or the non-implementation of any of those recommendations. That last limb is the one people miss when an employer sits on a finding made in the complainant's favour. The appeal is not a fresh inquiry and the appellate authority will not re-interview witnesses. What it will look at is whether the Committee was lawfully constituted, whether it followed a fair procedure, and whether the conclusion is one the material could support.
| Stage | What you can do | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Findings shared during the inquiry | Make a representation against the findings before the Committee | Second proviso to Section 11(1) |
| Report to the employer | Demand a copy, due within ten days of completion | Section 13(1) |
| Recommendation of no action | Appeal | Section 13(2) read with Section 18(1) |
| Employer does nothing with a favourable finding | Appeal against non-implementation | Section 18(1) |
| Time to appeal | Ninety days of the recommendations | Section 18(2) |
Where the appeal goes
Section 18(1) sends the appeal to the court or tribunal provided by the service rules applicable to you, and where no such service rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed. The rules made under the Act in December 2013 prescribe an appeal to the appellate authority notified under clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. That Act stood repealed when the labour codes commenced on 21 November 2025, which sounds like a problem and is not one. Section 104(2) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 provides that anything done or any action taken under the repealed enactments, including any notification or appointment made under them, is deemed to have been done under the corresponding provisions of the Code and remains in force so far as it is not contrary to the Code, and the Code carries forward its own definition of an appellate authority notified by the appropriate Government. A High Court division bench in June 2026 rejected the argument that no appellate forum exists because no fresh notification was issued after 2013, held that the pre-existing State notification serves, and sent the complainant to the appeal rather than deciding the facts in a writ petition.
Most Bengaluru employers have no certified standing orders at all, because the standing orders chapter of the Industrial Relations Code applies to an establishment with three hundred or more workers. So for the ordinary private sector complainant the prescribed route, not the service rules route, is the one that applies.
What a defective inquiry looks like
- The Committee had no external member from a non-governmental organisation, or fewer than half its nominated members were women, both of which Section 4(2) requires
- The Presiding Officer was not a woman employed at a senior level at the workplace
- You were never given the findings, so the Section 11(1) representation stage never happened
- The inquiry ran past the ninety days Section 11(4) allows, with no explanation on the record
- You asked the Committee to call for CCTV footage, access logs, seating records or earlier complaints against the same respondent and it refused, although Section 11(3) gives it the powers of a civil court to summon persons and compel the production of documents
- The report reasons from the delay in complaining alone, when Section 9(1) itself contemplates a complaint up to three months after the last incident and a further reasoned extension
Those are potential procedural grounds. Section 18 does not confine an appeal to procedure alone. The memorandum should identify the challenged recommendation and explain the relevant factual, legal or procedural error. Obtain the constitution order, minutes and evidence before drafting, and address the reasoning in the report rather than merely repeating disagreement with the result.
If they have also moved against you
Where the Committee has gone further and recommended action against you under Section 14(1) for a malicious or false complaint, read the two provisos to that section carefully. The first says that a mere inability to substantiate a complaint or provide adequate proof need not attract action against the complainant. The second requires malicious intent to be established after a separate inquiry before any action is recommended. A Committee that dismisses the complaint and penalises the complainant in the same breath has almost always failed both. That recommendation is itself appealable under Section 18(1).
The clock, and the writ question
Ninety days from the recommendations, and the Act contains no power to condone delay in an appeal, unlike the reasoned extension it expressly gives for filing the complaint under Section 9. Treat the ninety days as hard. A writ petition under Article 226 remains available where the employer is a State instrumentality or where the defect is jurisdictional, but a court will ordinarily send you to the statutory appeal and will not re-appreciate evidence on the facts. Our note on challenging a POSH inquiry report works through how the two routes are chosen between.